Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

[RLENT]

"The latest release of Wikileaks documents - a trove of US diplomatic cables which offer, among other things, unflattering and candid assessments of world leaders - has deeply angered American officials.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wikileaks' actions undermined US foreign policy efforts and amounted to "an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity".

New York Congressman Pete King has called for the US Attorney General to designate Wikileaks a terrorist organisation and to prosecute founder Julian Assange for espionage.

Much of the criticism of Wikileaks, though, revolves around the notion that releasing such information risks lives.

Identities of informants could be compromised, spies exposed, and the safety of human rights activists, journalists and dissidents jeopardised when information of their activities is made public, the argument goes.

US military officials contend that allowing enemies access to their strategic and operational documents creates a dangerous environment for American troops serving abroad.

On Saturday, US state department legal adviser Harold Koh wrote in a letter to Wikileaks that the most recent document dump "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" as well as "ongoing military operations".

He accused Wikileaks of endangerment "without regard to the security and the sanctity of the lives your actions endanger".

But is there any real evidence of this peril?

Justification for secrecy
The problem for officials like Mr Koh is proving direct links between the information released and any loss of life.

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."

But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

"The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

"The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

Unknowable effects
Mr Ellsberg noted that with this release, the newspapers involved co-operated with the US government to ensure that the information they published did not imperil lives.

New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told the BBC that although his newspaper did not always agree with the advice of US authorities, it had carefully redacted the published documents to remove identifying information.

"Our hope is that we've done everything in our power to minimise actual damage," he said.

[RLENT Editorial Comment: Well now ... ain't that interesting ? .... and yet we still have this retard blowhard Lieberman calling for an investigation of the The New York Times for violation of the Espionage Act ....]

Carne Ross, a former UK diplomat at the United Nations, told the BBC that the effects of Wikileaks were largely unknowable at this point.

"I don't think it has been proven that this is dangerous to US troops, for instance. I haven't seen that case made very clearly” he said. "What I think this means is that we need to look at our own mechanisms for democratic accountability and foreign policy. We need to be much, much better."

One thing the experts appear to agree on is that the leaks will make it more difficult for US diplomats and human intelligence operatives to do their jobs. Although that does not present an immediate threat to American lives, strained international relations may create a more dangerous world.

"They embarrass governments with which the US co-operates," Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said of the leaks on the BBC's World Today programme.

"At the very least, they will make governments like Pakistan and Yemen and others, which are collaborating with the US in the battle against terrorism, more reluctant to co-operate.

"It's harming some of the vital activities that the US government, the UK government or others engage in, which are protecting us against terrorism.""

Max Boot's opinions should come as no big surprise, given who he works for .....

So there ya have it: sources at the Pentagon, and indeed, even the Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell himself, admit they cannot show any evidence to support the contention that release of this data has resulted in any harm whatsoever to (let alone the death of) of one US solider ....

And we know governments use secrecy (under the rubric of "security" and "lives are at stake") to cover up unethical, immoral and often criminal behavior .....

So other than few histrionic blowhards around here, none of whom can apparently offer any specific instances with direct, verifiable evidence that the release of this info, or any other "news coverage" has indeed "cost lives" ..... I ask you: what evidence is there ?

The answer ought to be fairly clear .....

Original article:
Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

 

[Turtle]

So there ya have it: sources at the Pentagon, and indeed, even the Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell himself, admit they cannot show any evidence to support the contention that release of this data has resulted in any harm whatsoever to (let alone the death of) of one US solider ....

Perhaps a subtle difference, that's not quite what he said. While the wording differences are minor, there is a chasm of difference between "in any harm whatsoever," and "see any harm ... that we can directly tie to..."

It is very conceivable that one or more American soldiers have been injured or killed because one or more enemy combatants were just a little bit more motivated than they otherwise would not have been, due to something they read in the Wikileaks documents.

I ask you: what evidence is there ?

Because I can be somewhat of a little snot, I quote this from a good friend:

...... that you know about or that was public knowledge .....

A wise man always has somewhat of a handle on what it is that he might not know ....

I can envision a scenario where they fabricated evidence of directly attributable deaths that no one could refute, and did so just to make Wikileaks look bad, and lots of people would refuse to believe believe it. Because, you know, the government always lies.

I can also envision a scenario where they had direct irrefutable evidence where lives were lost as a direct result of the leaked documents, and they presented the evidence, and people refused to believe it, claiming it was all fabricated. For the same reason.

Because, of course, the government lies to us all the time.

Except, of course, when they say they have no evidence that directly links the leaked documents to any injuries or deaths. We'll believe that.

I can envision a scenario where real injuries and deaths have occurred as a direct result of the leaked documents, but the government wants to keep that a secret in order to make people believe the leaks are harmless and don't do any real harm, to dramatically play down the import of such leaked documents.

 

[EnglishLady]

As to whether or not these leaks have thus far caused injury or harm to ANY military, IMO would be difficult to determine, and I hardly think any Government is going to let us know at this time.

What I am convinced about is that with these new leaks on sensitive sites around the world, Assange has overstepped the mark by given any terrorist organization, any maniac – a road map of where to hit.
This could indeed cause great harm to not only Military around the world but also civilians – and all of this would be Assange’s fault.

If he had stopped at the leaks revealing corruption, bullying, weakness in the Worlds Governments I maybe would not feel so strongly as I do right now.

But with the latest leaks IMO he, and his cohorts, have acted totally irresponsibly, putting all of our lives at risk.

And for what? What does he hope to gain from all of this? Anarchy? Mayhem? Chaos?
What is his end agenda?
Does he actually think he is helping the World by revealing such sensitive information?

IMO he should be charged with whatever law best fits. And any injuries or deaths because of these leaks, Assange should also be charged with.

 

[RLENT]

Limited time to reply .... hafta be at my p/u in a few minutes ....

As to whether or not these leaks have thus far caused injury or harm to ANY military, IMO would be difficult to determine, and I hardly think any Government is going to let us know at this time.

Hard to imagine, since such would provide actual evidence of actual harm caused .....

In fact, your observation bolsters my point: the only thing you have to rely on is broad generalities, where government officials make claims - with no verifiable evidence to back them.

What I am convinced about is that with these new leaks on sensitive sites around the world, Assange has overstepped the mark by given any terrorist organization, any maniac – a road map of where to hit.

You do realize that the list of facilities on the list (many of which apparently have no specific location info associated with them) to which you are referring, apparently contains NO secret facilities - the existence of all these facilities is broad public information - out there in the public domain.

The only thing "secret" about them is that someone (likely multiple someones) had an opinion that these facilities were "key" to US national interests.

Reading it would be a "Well, duh ......" moment .....

Reply more later ......

 

[EnglishLady]

You do realize that the list of facilities on the list (many of which apparently have no specific location info associated with them) to which you are referring, apparently contains NO secret facilities - the existence of all these facilities is broad public information - out there in the public domain.

The only thing "secret" about them is that someone (likely multiple someones) had an opinion that these facilities were "key" to US national interests.

Reading it would be a "Well, duh ......" moment .....

Reply more later ......

Okey dokey, I will rephrase that sentence from ..... "What I am convinced about is that with these new leaks on sensitive sites around the world, Assange has overstepped the mark by given any terrorist organization, any maniac – a road map of where to hit."

to .... What I am convinced about is that with these new leaks on Key facilities that are vital to that Nations Security, Assange has overstepped the mark etc etc.
If the "enemy" didn't know before, they do now.

 

[xiggi]

Max Boot's opinions should come as no big surprise, given who he works for .....

So there ya have it: sources at the Pentagon, and indeed, even the Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell himself, admit they cannot show any evidence to support the contention that release of this data has resulted in any harm whatsoever to (let alone the death of) of one US solider ....

And we know governments use secrecy (under the rubric of "security" and "lives are at stake") to cover up unethical, immoral and often criminal behavior .....

So other than few histrionic blowhards around here, none of whom can apparently offer any specific instances with direct, verifiable evidence that the release of this info, or any other "news coverage" has indeed "cost lives" ..... I ask you: what evidence is there ?

The answer ought to be fairly clear .....

Original article:
Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

And your proof that it has not or will not cost lives is?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

If Wiki had the resources to get this so called secret information..I am quite sure the bad guys could get it as well...

I had the rad detector go off at the border one time....the officer put the rad detector in my van then walked away..I asked him what the reading was....his answer...Sorry but that is classified....but went on about that the level and Type of rad was safe....I asked him WHY he walked away from the van if it was so safe....no reply...

 

[witness23]

If Wiki had the resources to get this so called secret information....(

If I'm not mistaken, Wikilieaks does not look for the information, it is given to them and then they in turn publish it on their web-site. From what I understand the information was given to Wikileaks by Private First Class Bradley Manning an Army Ingeligence Analyst that had access to the "cables".

I am quite sure the bad guys could get it as well...(

I really haven't been following this situation that closely but I think that is what all the "hub-bub" is all about. How much of the "cables" that were sent to Assange did the "bad guys" already know or not know.

If there is information the "bad guys" can use, the Private just made it that much easier to access.

I am sure it has been mentioned in the 30 or so threads about this, but I haven't read them all. I really do not see why everyone is up in arms about Assange. We have had covert CIA agents outed in the past, remember Valerie Plame. Rove, Libby and Cheney are still walking the streets.

It will be interesting to see how all this will pan out.

 

[RLENT]

And your proof that it has not or will not cost lives is?

xiggi,

I never claimed or asserted that (nor would I)- that was never my premise.

Reread the article and what I wrote - I am trying to make a particular point ..... but it is actually better if you discover and realize it on your own ... as opposed to me feeding it to you.

Now, I gotta take a nap

 

[Brisco]

I really do not see why everyone is up in arms about Assange. We have had covert CIA agents outed in the past, remember Valerie Plame. Rove, Libby and Cheney are still walking the streets.

It will be interesting to see how all this will pan out.

Valerie Plame, the CIA secretary, not "covert agent", who was a pawn in the liberal medias bias against Bush and his Administration???

Bad argument........

Yes, it will be interested to see how all this pans out since there's now an Administration in place that makes the Media Outlets Legs Tingle, know what I mean.

My opinion, Assange and Manning both need to be placed in front of a firing squad for espionage, period.

 

[EnglishLady]

If I'm not mistaken, Wikilieaks does not look for the information, it is given to them and then they in turn publish it on their web-site. From what I understand the information was given to Wikileaks by Private First Class Bradley Manning an Army Ingeligence Analyst that had access to the "cables".

It was classified information given to him, it does not make it un-classified just because he now has it.

I really haven't been following this situation that closely but I think that is what all the "hub-bub" is all about. How much of the "cables" that were sent to Assange did the "bad guys" already know or not know.

"All the hub-bub" - wow that is one term for it I suppose

If there is information the "bad guys" can use, the Private just made it that much easier to access.

Actually it was Assange that made them public not the Private

I am sure it has been mentioned in the 30 or so threads about this, but I haven't read them all. I really do not see why everyone is up in arms about Assange. We have had covert CIA agents outed in the past, remember Valerie Plame. Rove, Libby and Cheney are still walking the streets.

Because of all of the above, and this affects the World not just the US. This guy has been very, VERY irresponsible with these leaks. Trust me I wanted to write something else there.


It will be interesting to see how all this will pan out.

You certainly have a way with words - personally I hope nothing comes of any of this and it all just "goes away" the alternative could be catastrophic.

May I suggest that you do read up on what's be happening concerning Assange and these leaks. It will help you better understand the seriousness of what this guy has done.

 

[RLENT]

May I suggest that you do read up on what's be happening concerning Assange and these leaks. It will help you better understand the seriousness of what this guy has done.

Yeah ..... and most importantly, read the actual docs themselves and/or news coverage of them - it will help you better understand what your government has done ...... is probably continuing to do ...... and will continue to do into the future - unless they are held to account.

 

[RLENT]

Valerie Plame, the CIA secretary, not "covert agent",

More than just a secretary apparently .... and yes, she was clandestine ...

But, I really need to devote some time to properly address your silly assertions ...... and right now I need sleep.

So we'll see ya in a bit .....

 

[Turtle]

You do realize that the list of facilities on the list (many of which apparently have no specific location info associated with them) to which you are referring, apparently contains NO secret facilities - the existence of all these facilities is broad public information - out there in the public domain.

No "secret" facilities, for sure. Some are wildly in the public domain, some are not necessarily all that well known, and certainly not very well known to be of any importance to the US.

The only thing "secret" about them is that someone (likely multiple someones) had an opinion that these facilities were "key" to US national interests.

Correct. The State Department (Hilary) asked various diplomats to each come up on their own with a list of sites around the world "which, if destroyed, disrupted or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the United States."

To help compile this "Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative" list, diplomats were specifically told not to consult the host governments regarding any of the locations. The cable is labeled "secret state ... noforn, not for internet distribution." "Noforn" means it should not be shown to foreign governments or other non-U.S. interests.

Diplomats were asked to identify "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters."

Reading it would be a "Well, duh ......" moment .....

I don't think so. Reading a list of locations that are already known to exist may be a duh moment, but knowing that the destruction or incapacitation of many of these systems and assets might (or would) have a debilitating impact on the security and safety of the United States might not be such a duh moment.

Things like border crossings, hydroelectric dams and shipping lanes, reading those are duh moments, because the destruction of a hydroelectric dam that supplies power to obviously important facilities, or, say, the destruction of the Ambassador Bridge, would have obvious debilitating effects on national security, economic and otherwise. But not many people may realize the critical nature of other foreign dependencies like manufacturers of critical military components, medical manufacturing facilities and vaccines and antidotes in the case of an environmental attack.

It's clear that Assange's motivations are not to be the outlet for whistleblowers, but rather to attack the United States. A whistleblower is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it. The video of the helicopter gunship killing reporters qualifies as an intended "whistleblowing". With the release of these random diplomatic cables, and this cable in particular, this is clearly more of an intent to inflict damage on the US, plain and simple.

The Afghan War Diary, for that matter, strains the concept of "whistleblowing" as well, but with Assange's politics, it is possible he reasonably believed he was whistleblowing the entire war. He was/is against the war, and he probably saw a lot of potential crimes in it. But the mass release of these diplomatic cables doesn't qualify. There is little in those cables that could show evidence of US crimes, lies and corruption.

I used to be a big fan of Wikileaks, and Assange, but he's made that impossible now. His motivations are not altruistic at all. They may have started out that way, but they are no longer. His ego got in the way.

I'm with Brisco on this one, Assange and Manning both need to be placed in front of a firing squad for espionage.

 

[greg334]

Yeah ..... unless they are held to account.

You got to be joking?

You on drugs, seriously?

If we, the people want to have any accountability it is a sword that cuts both ways.

The private who turned over the material must also be held accountable as much as anyone you feel should be for 'crimes' that have been committed. This include taknig his life for his treasonous actions against every citizen in this country.

THE people who committed the crimes, regardless what they are, need to be held accountable under our laws and only our laws ... THEN and only then can there be justice serve.

 

[witness23]

I have to go, so I am just throwing this out there. I do not think there any laws on the books to go after someone who publish's the information\, not to mention intent. As emotional all of this is, there are still laws to be followed.

 

[Turtle]

The Espionage Act makes it a crime for...

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications
of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes.
(United States Code: Title 18,798. Disclosure of classified information)

The Supreme Court in the New York Times v United States (Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo re: Pentagon papers) found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint (government prosecutors screwed up, imagine that), but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial based on irregularities in the government's case (government prosecutors screwed up, imagine that).

Just because something is "classified" doesn't mean you can't publish it (much to the chagrin of Leiberman and far too many others), but if it's damaging to the safety and security of the United States and you publish it, you could be found guilty of the Espionage Act.

 

[EnglishLady]

I'm pretty sure that all the NATO Countries will have similar laws to that of the USA and the UK as stated in these posts.

This is from MI5 website.

First page of the Official Secrets Act 1911

Under the 1911 Act, a person commits the offence of 'spying' if he, for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State;
(a) approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place,

(b) makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; or

(c) obtains, collects, records, or publishes, or communicates to any other person any secret official code word, or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.

The offence of spying covers all such acts committed by any person within Her Majesty's dominions, and such acts committed elsewhere by British Officers or subjects. It is not necessary for the person concerned to have been warned beforehand that they were subject to the Official Secrets Act.The 1920 Act creates further offences of doing any "act preparatory" to spying, or of soliciting, inciting, seeking to persuade, or aiding and abetting any other person to commit spying.

 

[RLENT]

It's clear that Assange's motivations are not to be the outlet for whistleblowers, but rather to attack the United States.

Statement of an OPINION as ABSOLUTE FACT.

Reasonable people might disagree.

A whistleblower is someone who has evidence of a specific wrong and releases it.

And a journalist or "the press" is someone who publishes information as news, often with purposes that relate to serving the public good.

From Wikileaks Mission Statement:

"1.3 Why the media (and particularly Wiki leaks) is important

Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.

Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media.

In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world's publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change.

WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. We don't hoard our information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world's media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership.

.... truly an idea whose time has come ......

The video of the helicopter gunship killing reporters qualifies as an intended "whistleblowing".

Indeed it did ..... and just remember the US Armed Forces initially lied about that incident when queried about it, until confronted with irrefutable evidence ... and there was absolutely no way of escaping it.

(And BTW, thanks for raising it .... in utter violation of one of the most fundamental rules of PR ... )

With the release of these random diplomatic cables, and this cable in particular, this is clearly more of an intent to inflict damage on the US, plain and simple.

Statement of an OPINION as ABSOLUTE FACT.

Again, reasonable people might disagree.

Since you don't know what is in the remainder of the cables, you have no idea of what the relevance of what he has released may be to what he may release in the future ....

The Afghan War Diary, for that matter, strains the concept of "whistleblowing" as well, but with Assange's politics, it is possible he reasonably believed he was whistleblowing the entire war.

It's funny to watch people try to "ride a hobby-horse" - that's where they latch onto one (or two) thing(s) ..... oh, like say, "whistlerblowing" ...... and then try to use that make their case, all the while ignoring other things which might be relevant:

"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."

He was/is against the war, and he probably saw a lot of potential crimes in it.

Fact is, you (or I, for that matter) really have no idea of what he saw - or sees - since he has had access to all the cables, and you, nor I, have not.

But the mass release of these diplomatic cables doesn't qualify.

Statement of an OPINION as ABSOLUTE FACT.

The very best you can say is "At this point it, would appear, from what has been released so far the mass release of these diplomatic cables doesn't seem to qualify ...."

Of course, even so, that itself would be an opinion ..... on which reasonable people might disagree.

There is little in those cables that could show evidence of US crimes, lies and corruption.

Here's the thing: there are over 250,000 cables .... and only a small portion of them have been released.

And just in case you happened to skip over it above:

"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."

I used to be a big fan of Wikileaks, and Assange, but he's made that impossible now. His motivations are not altruistic at all. They may have started out that way, but they are no longer. His ego got in the way.

Statement of an OPINION as ABSOLUTE FACT.

Once again, reasonable people might disagree.

I'm with Brisco on this one, Assange and Manning both need to be placed in front of a firing squad for espionage.

Well, it's certainly true that one's taste in personal political company is, undoubtedly one's own ... just personally, based on Mr. Brisco's previous posts, I don't see myself jumping in that boat any time real soon ......

 

[RLENT]

You got to be joking?

You on drugs, seriously?

Greg,

I have often wondered the same thing about yourself, considering some of your posts here on EO. Fairly frequently you will just nail something, bringing (some) obvious knowledge of world history and an reasonable understanding of the matter at hand.

Other times your posts often seem unfocused and meandering ... with lots of blah ... blah .... blah .... (a fact remarked on by not only myself) .... as though you just can't quite get your mental arms around the matter ...... and ultimately failing to make anything resembling a cogent point .......

As far the drug question, the answer would be emphatic no .... I'm pretty much against drugs (both illegal and legal) for the most part, although I must admit, in the interests being candid, I do occasionally take a children's aspirin sometimes (no more than two per day) ..... other than that ...... I'd pretty much hafta have knocked on death's door, had it open, and had at least one foot across the threshold ... before I'd be ingesting most of that crap ...

You, on the otherhand, used to work for Big Pharma .... which might say something ....

Now .... since I've answered candidly ... and told the truth - how about you:

Are you currently taking any medication, particularly any psychoactive drugs ?

If we, the people want to have any accountability it is a sword that cuts both ways.

Yup.

The private who turned over the material must also be held accountable as much as anyone you feel should be for 'crimes' that have been committed.

..... provided they are justly convicted of a crime ....

This include taknig his life for his treasonous actions against every citizen in this country.

Since you didn't say "........ could include ....." and "..... possibly treasonous actions ....." in the above sentence, I cannot agree with your statement as made ....

But if you had included them, I would have ....

THE people who committed the crimes, regardless what they are, need to be held accountable under our laws and only our laws ... THEN and only then can there be justice serve.

... yes, of course .... provided that there were actually crimes committed .....